> They are destroying books that they bought. It should not be controversial that part of ownership is decided how to dispose of the owned object.

By your reasoning, if I could afford to buy every surviving painting by Van Gogh and Rembrandt and I burned them in a bon fire I wouldn't be taking anything from human culture and nobody should care at all about what I do with my belongings.

Destroying something that is rare or one of a kind and valuable does matter. Doing it so that you can exclusively profit off of charging people for software that regurgitates lossy and error filled versions of what was lost makes it even worse.

▲

rpdillon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In your scenario, the bug is letting someone control all of that in a private collection. But that scenario is completely divorced from what is actually happening, so I don't think it's worth discussing too deeply here.

If you actually object to the concept that people that own a physical object get to decide how to dispose of it, that would be an interesting discussion to have because it would fly in the face of property ownership rights.

	▲	calf 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why such a blinkered argument, I own the soda can I just drank but it is still, arguably, wrong of me to chuck it in the trash instead of the recycle bin. Yes, you have the "right" to dispose of things you own but there's more to what's right than that. There's human decency, consideration, awareness of the environment, the spirit of the laws, cases the laws were not designed for in mind etc. Like, tell your mother or HS teacher you decided not to recycle because you own your trash. See how well that clever argument goes.

▲

jacquesm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

More so because their digital copy increases in value because of the destruction.

	▲	rpdillon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Only in a world where we can't make new copies, which does not seem to be this world.